We need a NWO, desperately! And if the march of progress proves anything, it is that we are better off than our parents, and our children will be better off than us. This brief post is a compilation of ideas and thoughts to counterbalance NWO DOOM.
First a snippet from the Journal of Law and Politics which suggests,
the need to create a new world financial order in the light of the current financial crisis is premised on a variety of reasons which include political harmony, political dignity, flexibility, re-enforcement, diversification, etc.
Whilst the JLP engages the financial side of the NWO, it is money that, “makes the world go round”. Now to the juicy part – how will the evil elite will wrap their tentacles around our women and children? Conspirators have suggested:
Ok so why would anyone want to look through your bedroom window, browse through your emails or control what you think? Lawlessness is the natural state of a system in decay, when the all seeing eye sees through a glass darkly, other measures must be taken to ensure societal self control, surveillance = mass mindfulness.
Individuals have to work tirelessly to control their own behavior, schools give us a head-start, showing us how to grab the reigns of the selfish tyrant that kept us safe in the Old World.
TV and ‘the media’ keep us fashionable (as in malleable) and informed (the opposite of fashionable) unifying behavior and thought at a grass roots level, and far from enslaving us, empower us as agents prepared for change, exlplaining complicated events and discoveries in understandable terms.
Globalization – wheres the good in that? Well mass migration keeps ideas, memes and genes fresh, and hence individuals in the future will be stronger, healthier, less inclined to disease and perhaps happier than ever before.
Occultism – this always gets me; a system of knowledge hidden from the profane that the elite can control us with… Having been involved with the Occult for many years and having access to many papers and documents which are occult in nature, it makes me laugh to think that their is evil behind it. For brevities sake I would some up “the Occult” as ‘a system of self control for the greater benefit of all’. Acute knowledge of natural laws comes through the twinned efforts of self sacrifice and self cultivation, that this could be used for evil is obvious – a sharp sword cuts better than a blunt one.
There are always two sides to every story, i hope this finds its way to those frightened and disenfranchised individuals that assume unification is evil and chaos is better than order.
Oh and population control? 🙂
Between 1625 and 1683 twenty one Icelanders were burnt alive for practicing magic. The Icelandic witch-craze was imported from Europe by members of a ruling class of semi-nobles who were to a large extent educated in Denmark and northern Germany. One extended family of landowners, primarily in the northwest of the country, supplied the majority of the sheriffs presiding over the court cases for witchcraft and a large portion of the clergy, among them priests who wrote treatises against magic, heavily influenced by European works such as the Malleus mallificorum.
The European influence is not as obvious when the charges in witchcraft cases are reviewed. Contemporary sources, mainly annals and court records, tell us that a third of the charges were for causing sickness in persons and livestock, and another third for possessing grimoires or pages with galdrastafir, i.e. magical signs or staves. Heresy and satanism are hardly mentioned at all. Another striking difference between the European and Icelandic witch-hunts is that only one woman was among those burnt at the stake.
Around 130 cases of witchcraft or sorcery are found in court records both from the high court at Þingvellir and in fragments of county court records. Of the approximately 170 persons accused around 10% were women, the rest were males, mostly of the lower classes though some sheriffs and clergymen were also accused. None of the latter suffered physical punishments. It must be remembered in this context that the total population of Iceland at the time was only around fifty thousand.
Apart from the charges mentioned above, people were accused of waking up the dead, using magic to heal, and about a tenth of cases mention blasphemy though seldom as the only accusation.
A quarter of cases ended with a sentence of whipping which could mean anything from a half a dozen lashes to three consecutive whippings, all of them as heavy as a man could endure and still stay alive. A quarter of those accused were aquitted, at least 15% managed to escape the law, and we do not know the outcome of another 15% of cases. There is no evidence that physical torture was ever used in Iceland to secure confessions.
Article from: Galdrasýning á Ströndum
Museum of Icelandic Sorcery & Witchcraft
An artistic montage detailing the various stages of creating and binding my Grimoire of Icelandic Magical Staves and Rune interpretations.
Icelandic magical staves (sigils) are symbols credited with magical effect preserved in various grimoires dating from the 17th century and later. According to the Museum of Icelandic Sorcery and Witchcraft, the effects credited to most of the staves were very relevant to the average Icelanders of the time, who were mostly subsistence farmers and had to deal with harsh climatic conditions.
Að fá stúlku : Used for love from a woman to a man.
Dreprún : To kill an enemy’s cattle.
Vegvísir : To guide people through rough weather.
The Witch-hunts in Iceland
“Iceland’s unique, haunting beauty has attracted travelers through the ages. Home to a population of just 300,000, Iceland’s interior highlands are a vast emptiness of uninhabited lands, where man and nature are truly alone with each other.
Filmed in fabulous HD 1080p, with incredible new footage taken during and shortly after the Eyjafjallajokull eruption, our camera takes us to remote areas and high above this breathtaking landscape for a moving panorama of just a few of Iceland’s contrasting vistas, some accessible only by helicopter: deserted black sand beaches, steaming ash covered glaciers torn asunder by red hot volcanic lava, misty lowlands, primordial desert planes and glacial lagoons.
Enjoy the magnificence of nature and capture the serenity of Iceland’s magical beauty!”
Compiled by Elizabeth Leafloor
Most of us like to think that we are in control of our actions. Turns out, your brain can be a big jerk, and you are susceptible to a large list of biases and reactions that can hold you back from acting objectively. Luckily, some good social psychology books (spurred on by well-research papers and experiments!) have revealed a large amount of these biases to the common reader.
Here are five notorious social biases and the ways that you can recognize them and react.
Fundamental Attribution Error
This is a very insidious bias that we all fall victim to from time-to-time.
The calling card of the fundamental attribution error is when we place a large amount of emphasis on situational explanations when rationalizing when things happen to us, but we use personality-based explanations when rationalizing what happens to others.
As an example:
If Alice saw Bob trip over a rock and fall, Alice might consider Bob to be clumsy or careless (personal/dispositional).
If Alice tripped over the same rock herself, she would be more likely to blame the placement of the rock (situational).
First uncovered by the classic study The attribution of attitudes, there are STILL no concrete explanations to explain its occurrence.
Some of the more common reasons cited include:
- The just-world phenomenon: our brains are naturally inclined to have a belief that the world is balanced or “fair”, and that things that happen to others happen for a reason. While we often see other people this way, we have a tendency to see ourselves as “victims” instead.
- Salience of the actor: individuals capture our attention, so when observing their situation, we are focused on them, when observing our own situation, we focus on the environment.
- Automaticity & processing: we often process things on a subconscious level, and it’s often easier for our brain to wave away a situation as happening “just because they deserve it” rather than looking at the circumstances.
Dealing with it: Unfortunately, there isn’t much beyond an agreed list of “best practices” when it comes to dealing with the fundamental attribution error (it’s that pervasive!). The best I’ve got for you is to remind yourself of the old adage of, “Walking a mile in someone’s shoes,” and determining if the situation is playing a major role in the event.
For instance, if a beginner makes a mistake, recall a time when you were a beginner yourself at the same activity or another; it’s likely that your nervousness, inexperience, and other outside factors caused you to make some errors as well.
The Halo effect is an attributional bias where our brain makes judgements about the character or competency of others based off of our general impression of them. In some cases, it can be viewed as a form of social proof.
The problem occurs when these impressions are wrong, and since they are often based off of superficial judgements (such as if the person is attractive to us), we can be wrong quite often.
What is also worrisome is that this bias seems to be present even at the highest levels of society in realms where objectivity should rule. In fact, it’s been shown that on average, attractive people serve shorter prison sentences than others who were convicted of similar crimes.
Dealing with it: The most important way to battle against this bias is to try and detach yourself from the person at hand and to take the actions in as much of a “vacuum” as you are able.
If the same action were committed by someone whom you didn’t admire, would it impact you the same way? We have a tendency to get swept up in the stories of others, so ask yourself if the “mystique” about someone was gone, would you perceive their actions differently?
It’s important to ask yourself these questions when trying to objectively evaluate the actions of someone who may have left a strong impression on you or is someone who you truly respect: those qualities don’t always lead to the person being right.
The “naive cynicism” bias occurs quite often, even in the most trusting of people.
It states that people are, on average, likely to assume that others have more of an egocentric biasthan themselves. This means that people believe that others are more likely to be egocentric than themselves when dealing with people.
We have data to show that this is not the case (statistically speaking), such as how Malcom Gladwell’s Blink showed that most people do not sue their doctors when injured due to negligence, despite the often pervasive idea that patients are always taking advantage of malpractice in this manner.
In one series of experiments, groups including married couples, video game players, darts players and debaters were asked how often they were responsible for good or bad events relative to a partner.
Participants evenly apportioned themselves for both good and bad events, but expected their partner to claim more responsibility for good events than bad events than they actually did.
Dealing with it: The important thing to remember about this bias is that it’s more of an outlook on others. While circumstance often plays a huge role in people’s outlook on the world (those born in a crowded, crime-ridden city may have different views on other people than those who grew up in a quiet suburb), but it’s important to remember that there are a LOT of people in the world and that, on average, most people evaluate situations in the same fashion that you do.
People by and large will give credit where it’s due, and you should try to react to situations where you have some sort of inclination that the opposite will happen, not just assume that everyone is more egocentric than yourself.
This one probably didn’t need a study to confirm it, am I right?
It’s very obvious to many of us that people favor those who are in “their” group, but there is something a lot scarier about this bias than you may realize: people often form groups from the most trivial distinctions.
In a notorious study called Social categorization and intergroup behaviour, social psychologist Henri Tajfel was able to show that people could be placed into groups from meaningless choices (choosing between two painters who they had never met) and then have these choices affect their reactions when it came time to dole out real rewards.
Think about that.
People who chose the same painter (again, the choice was meaningless) would then, when queued to deal out real rewards to any participant, chose to FAVOR those who chose the same painter and DISCRIMINATE against those who didn’t.
To make matters worse, in a study on customer loyalty programs, consumer researchers showed that people became more loyal to the programs when they new that they were in a “gold” class and above other people enrolled in the program, showing that meager distinctions of superiority can make people more loyal to a supposed in-group.
Additional studies have shown that things as shallow as similar purchases can trigger the effect. So if you meet someone and they also own some tennis racquets, terrariums, a pair of Crocs, or aDolphin Power Boat (yes, that’s real), you are susceptible to in-group favoritism rearing its ugly head. Meeting someone with a common item, such as a guy who also wears pants, probably won’t trigger the effect, or at least I hope so…
Dealing with it: This (as with all of these biases) is tough to handle, but this one is especially tricky because it can we can encounter it due to the actions of others. To maintain our own objectivity, the best way is to envision an interaction without group constructs in place.
If this or that person weren’t connected with you in some way, would you still feel the same about their actions? Conversely, if someone from the “other team” were on your side, would their actions be different in your eyes? It’s important to consider these distinctions when evaluating individual situations because, as the research shows, we can be heavily influenced by them.
No list would be complete without this one.
The Dunning-Kruger effect states that unskilled individuals are likely to suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. Conversely, those who are highly competent may have feelings of inferiority, because they believe everybody else has the same competency that they do.
According to Charles Darwin:
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
It turns out that he was far more correct than many of us would like to admit.
In some recent research (2008), Dunning & Kruger asserted that individuals who were most likely to suffer from illusory superiority were those who were disinclined to receive feedback from others on their performance. Blocking out of any critiques allowed them to create a sense of accomplishment that wasn’t necessarily true.
Dealing with it: Lacking confidence in oneself is just as bad as being overconfident. What then can we do to avoid falling victim to both sides of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
I think that the solution is best addressed in one of my favorite quotes by Ernest Hemingway:
“There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.”
Focusing on improving yourself and not worrying about the performance of others or your skill in relation to them.
It’s fine to be competitive, but when you spend too much time analyzing what other people are doing (especially if it’s not for a competitive sport or activity), you’re just setting yourself up for disappointment as you set goals based on other people’s lives rather than your own.
Never take your position for granted and never let any favors you receive go to your head.
Half of your mastery of power comes from what you do not do, what you do not allow yourself to get dragged into.
The most important of these skills, and power’s crucial foundation, is the ability to master your emotions. An emotional response to a situation is the single greatest barrier to power, a mistake that will cost you a lot more than any temporary satisfaction you might gain by expressing your feelings. Emotions cloud reason, and if you cannot see the situation clearly, you cannot prepare for and respond to it with any degree of control.
All working situations require a kind of distance between people. You are trying to work, not make friends; friendliness (real or false) only obscures that fact. The key to power, then, is the ability to judge who is best able to further your interests in all situations. Keep friends for friendship, but work with the skilled and competent.
Learn the lesson: Once the words are out, you cannot take them back. Keep them under control. Be particularly careful with sarcasm: The momentary satisfaction you gain with your biting words will be outweighed by the price you pay.
In most areas of life, the less you say, the more profound and mysterious you appear.
If deception is the most potent weapon in your arsenal, then patience in all things is your crucial shield.
Never waste valuable time, or mental peace of mind, on the affairs of others—that is too high a price to pay.
By saying less than necessary you create the appearance of meaning and power. Also, the less you say, the less risk you run of saying something foolish, even dangerous.
Seem to want something in which you are actually not at all interested and your enemies will be thrown off the scent, making all kinds of errors in their calculations.
Sarah silver very kindly nominated this blog for the “One lovely Blogger award”. I would just like to thank her. Things have been pretty manic around here (so much for the Zen approach!) so I haven’t had time to blog a great deal or offer a more full response. I am hoping September with it’s autumnal calm will enable a full and deserving response to Sarah’s nomination. But for now, back to the grindstone!